Back
MOHAN LAL
Ramesh Chander – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir through Incharge Police Station Crime Branch Jammu – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Petitioner by the medium of instant petition preferred under Section 561-A [now Section 482 Cr.PC] of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as to the “Code”) has assailed order dated 30.07.2013 rendered by the Court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge (Anti-Corruption) Jammu, whereby, charges have been framed against the petitioner in FIR No. 21/2010 under Sections 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Sections 420, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, RPC in case titled State of J&K Vs. Babu Ram & Ors.,
2. Aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 30.07.2013, petitioner has assailed it’s legality, propriety and correctness and has sought it’s quashment on the following grounds:—
(i) that a complaint was forwarded to Crime Branch by Parvez Ahmed Malik Director CAPD Jammu vide his office letter No. 79/G/PV/1815-17 dated 25.08.2010, wherein, it was alleged that on 05.08.2010 incharge Asst. Director CAPD Udhampur reported that he conducted a surprise checking of food store Udhampur wherein a huge quantity of food grains/sugar was found short in food store; the committee constituted to conduct physical verification submitted it’s report which tentativel
At the stage of framing charges, the court must evaluate the material and documents on record to determine if the facts disclose all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court has th....
Charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require a substantive offence to be present and can be altered by the court before judgment, according to legal precedents.
The power of the judge to sift and weigh the evidence for finding a prima facie case against the accused and the presumption of the alleged offence against the accused are crucial legal principles es....
At the charge framing stage, courts must accept prosecution materials as true without conducting a mini-trial, determining only if prima facie evidence exists to proceed.
The court ruled that charges framed against an accused must have sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance to uphold prosecutorial validity; otherwise, it constitutes an infringement of fundamenta....
At the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case needs to be established, without detailed examination of evidence.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to frame charges, emphasizing that only a prima facie case is required at this stage, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court's jurisdiction to quash an order framing charges is limited to cases of patent error of jurisdiction and does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence or interference with the trial c....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
